Bush Haters Slander My Dead Comrades
Posted By John Moore on January 27, 2004
Every time a Bush hater attacks his military service record, they are slandering my dead comrades, people who died in military aviation serving their country. They are slandering me, my brother and my friends, and slandering the men and women currently in the National Guard and Reserves. There is always the implication that somehow Bush’s service was “the easy way out”. WRONG! The easy way out was to avoid service, as most of my current friends did, rather than piloting a flying coffin, the F-102! And most people of my generation did avoid service, which was also not dishonorable. Bush could have totally avoided military service also had he desired.
They say that Bush “took the easy way out” by “using his connections” to fly in the Texas Air National Guard. My childhood best friend, John Robert Kelley also took this “easy way out.” They had his memorial service in Albuquerque in July 1972 after he died in a training accident, flying a fighter jet in the New Mexico Air National Guard (the “Tacos”). Yep, that was the easy way out! John loved life. He was a fun guy, always with a prank or two, athletic and very intelligent. The last time I saw him, he was scheming how to get me a ride in his jet. Oh, and John didn’t use any connections to get into the ANG, because it wasn’t necessary. Every time I hear Bush slandered, I sadly remember this loss, and wonder at the lack of respect for the military so common on the left.
I took a similar route. I joined the Naval Air Reserve in 1966 (2 year active duty commitment, just like a draftee, and 3 year active reserve requirement) I was going to join the army, but the allure of airplanes changed my mind (to the relief of my parents). I didn’t need any connections either. My friend Joe and I just drove to the Naval Air Station, walked in to the recruiting office, and enlisted!
When you join the military, you roll the dice. What you end up doing, whether you end up in danger, whether you end up in discomfort, or whether you end up in some paradise is largely a matter of luck. Of course, during the Vietnam years, the odds were decent that you would end up over there. The only thing joining the Naval Air Reserve guaranteed was that you would be involved with Naval Aviation, and that in normal times, you would have two years of active duty, but you could be instantly called up over a period of six years. National Guard folks had no more guarantee that we did.
Joe ended up in the Tonkin Gulf, fueling aircraft on the dangerous and hot deck of an aircraft carrier. He got double hazardous duty pay. He is a Vietnam Veteran. I ended up flying in a P-3 Orion. The P-3 is a combat aircraft, with lots of sensors and lots of weapons. Its primary mission is submarine hunting and surface surveillance, although it was used in the Afghan war (35 years after my time) as combat air support for the SEALs. It was used in Vietnam (Operation Market Time) for surface interdiction.
With a little luck, and my already existing electronics skills, I was able to land a job as an aircrew member – radio operator and on-board technician. I only got regular hazardous duty pay, so I guess I too took the easy way out. I am a Vietnam Veteran. By the way, flying jobs were all voluntary in those days (except perhaps in the Army).
But the message the Democrats are sending is that Joe and I and John took “the easy way out.”
Tell that to the families of my squadron mates who were killed in training crashes.
Tell that to the survivors of the person to first take me up in a P-3, a fine petty officer with a wife and several kids.
Tell that to the Air National Guard members and Naval Air Reservists who were sent to fight in Vietnam.
Tell that to the Guard and Reserve members during the cold war who were on 24 hour call to defend their country anywhere in the world.
Tell that to the National Guard and Reserve folks in Iraq.
Tell that to me (Naval Air Reserve) or my brother (National Guard).
Tell that to John Kelley’s family!
Of course, we also hear the Bush “went AWOL” or, to hear Michael Moore put it, was a “deserter.” These are slanderous lies, as anyone who has been in the military and knows the rules understands. If Bush had gone AWOL, he would have been prosecuted. He clearly wasn’t a deserter. Check here for all the evidence you need! Bush served honorably, flew more hours than was required, and was a good pilot according to his commander.
They say Bush didn’t serve his entire “required time” and that makes him somehow AWOL or a deserter. I didn’t serve my full 3 years of Reserve duty either, because I wasn’t required to and there weren’t any P-3’s around where I lived (I now regret this, btw). I simply asked to be let off early because I had 2 jobs and was going to college, they had me fill out a form, and that was it.
Part of the slander against Bush is that not all records exist for a period of his service. Once again, my experience parallels his. I ordered my military records recently, and there is NO evidence that I ever served in my second reserve squadron. When I joined the squadron, they couldn’t find my records, and I never, ever got paid for service in that unit. I guess I’m AWOL too!
Finally, many who criticize Bush hold up John Kerry as a contrast. See here for information about Kerry’s immediate post-war activities.
Here a National Guard pilot, Larry Murphy, PA National Guard is taking the “easy way out” in Afghanistan. That’s a Vietnam era aircraft he is flying! Do you suppose the Bush Haters have the courage to do this?
Since John Moore did not say who his post was in regard to, I’ll assume it’s in regard to me, since mine was the latest post.
“Once again, service in the Guard is slandered. Once again, my best friend was a coward for choosing the easy way out (I guess it’s cowardly to die in New Mexico when you could have died in Viet Nam).”
Please show me exactly where I called ANYONE a coward for joining the National Guard. It’s amusing how you resort immediately to making such baseless accusations. Nowhere did I make that claim. I stated the simple facts - from the Air Force’s own webpage - that only FOUR Air National Guard units were deployed to Vietnam during the war. If you want to claim the Air Force is wrong, contact them, and tell THEM that they are “accusing your buddy of being a coward” for claiming that only 4 ANG units were deployed to Vietnam.
Sure, people flying planes in the ANG within the US have died. Convenience store clerks have died within the US - does that mean that working at a convenience store is equivalent to serving in armed conflict? If not, then why do you equate flying a plane within the US to serving in combat itself? The two are not the same thing. Stating that simple fact is not calling a person who serves in the Guard a “coward”, just as I am not calling convenient store clerks cowards. If facts bother you so much that you need to resort to baseless attacks, perhaps you should not be making posts on the web where other people might confront your claims with those facts.
“Once again, you are telling every service person who didn’t go to ‘Nam that they didn’t do enough. ”
Again - WHERE am I saying that? Please show me. I stated the factual information off of the USAF’s webpages about ANG deployments. Is the USAF also telling service people who didn’t go to Nam that they didn’t do enough, by putting the number of ANG deployments during the war on the web? Please yell at them some if you feel they are. Practically every male (and many female) members of my family (immediate and extended) was in the military during Vietnam - and none were sent into combat. Am I somehow calling them cowards? If I am, please show me where I stated that.
“Furthermore, Bush fulfilled all of his requirements, as has been proven by such rabid conservative magazines as George! See here for several references.”
Huh? What George magazine said (from your link) was: It’s time to set the record straight . . . . Bush may have received favorable treatment to get into the Guard, served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, but he did accumulate the days of service required of him for his ultimate honorable discharge.
They said he accumulated the days of service necessary - but that he may have served irregularly after spring 1972 - that was the claim that was put out in 2000. Essentially, George acknowledged that that claim may be true.
“It’s amusing that the original “Bush was AWOL” charge is down to “nobody can remember seeing him in Alabama.” ”
Uh, that’s what the initial claim was back in 2000. So, you find it amusing that it has deteriorated back to the same claim? The claim was that if nobody can remember seeing him there, then perhaps he was AWOL. If he were there, shouldn’t somebody remember seeing him?
“And if you read the comments here by people who actually flew in combat aircraft (including myself), and who had lots of experience in the guard (mine was in the Reserves after active duty), you would learn two things: Bush was indeed in a dangerous occupation, more dangerous than many who went to Vietnam (an awful lot of Vietnam billets were logistical and support, and many of those were in very safe areas), and as dangerous as Swift Boat duty was at the time that Kerry volunteered (at that time, they were doing coastal patrol, not going up the rivers, but that changed while he was in school).”
I’m sorry, but THAT is insulting. Please check the death rates of those who served on Swift Boat duty in Vietnam to the death rates for pilots who remained in the US. Again, I am not calling US-based pilots “cowards” - just pointing out the baseless claim that it was MORE dangerous than serving in Vietnam. It’s utterly absurd, and flat-out insulting to the people who DIED serving in Vietnam. Perhaps you believe Kerry received those multiple Purple Hearts as a reward for playing a good game of poker while lounging relaxedly in the sun on his boat? Simply insulting and absurd.
“If you did a little more research, you would know that Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam, because the TANG did indeed send fighters there, but Bush wasn’t qualified at the time.”
Not according to the USAF’s webpages. They may have sent fighter planes - but according to their pages, they did not send any Guard units. If you think they are wrong, please take it up with them, rather than making baseless accusations that I am “insulting everyone who served in the Guard but was not sent to Nam” by just pointing out what the USAF says on their webpage.
[Rest deleted as redundant - seen and answered in other posts on this blog - attacks on Bush's current actions irrelevant to this thread. JM]
You are just digging yourself in deeper. Keep it up. Kerry won’t get ‘Nam vet votes. Your sort of rhetoric and that of McCauliff will ensure he doesn’t get any guard votes either. We know what you are implying, and it is that there is something not quite right about “just” serving in the Guard. You don’t have to say it, all you have to do is keep dragging out statistics showing how ’safe’ it was.
The clear implication of your post is that Bush had no risk of going to ‘Nam because TANG didn’t deploy there as a unit. But that is either a disingenuous statement or due to your lack of understanding of how the guard works (which given the number of web sites where ANG members have been talking about this, is sad). TANG sent airplanes. Strangely enough, those airplanes actually had pilots flying them - TANG pilots. When Bush joined, he could have been one of them. The timeline shows that he didn’t have enough hours in the aircraft to go, even though he flew more than the hours required to fulfill his guard obligations. Since by then the aircraft was being phased out, accumulating more time in it would have been pretty useless either to him or to the ANG (which would have been paying for it). Since he was not career military, he stopped flying it.
Now nobody is going to say that combat is the same as flying a dangerous aircraft. It is not. But serving in that dangerous aircraft is certainly not dishonorable, as you seem to imply. And it sure as hell isn’t the same as being a convenience store clerk (like I say, you are just digging yourself in deeper when you say crap like that). So when you start making those comparisons, you are indeed saying that those who didn’t serve in combat didn’t do enough. Otherwise, why bother to bring it up at all.
There were 8,000,000 people who served in the armed forces during the Vietnam war. 2,500,000 went to ‘Nam. A much smaller number served in combat.
So since I am apparently unable to understand why you are posting this stuff, perhaps you could enlighten me. Of what interest is it that Bush served irregularly in 1972? Why are we talking about this?
And you don’t seem to be very good at reading either. Otherwise you wouldn’t not have answered my post about swift boats the way you did.
And then you try to change the subject. Sorry, but I’m going to delete that part of your comment as irrelevant to the this thread. All it does is show your bias against Bush, and your willingness to misinterpret facts to your benefit.
“Why not let Bush release his service records if he has nothing to hide?”
Um they did. I’m going to say it now. The folks who hate Bush or for that matter just about any Republican, are never going to change, they will always hate him for some reason or another. If they can’t find a reason they will make one up (just look at Hesoid any time for proof of this). I’ll tell you something too..I hated Bush at first too during the California energy crisis for not lifting a finger to help us. Then I read into it and found out a lot of the problems were caused by Gray Davis and his own pandering and selling out to everyone in sight who would endorse him.
POLITICS: FOURTEEN QUESTIONS FOR KEVIN DRUM
I usually respect Kevin Drum, but he’s really gone off the rails on the Bush National Guard story (See here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here…
“You are just digging yourself in deeper. Keep it up. Kerry won’t get ‘Nam vet votes. ”
That’s odd, considering he has massive support from the VFW. But, they’re probably all just losers were sent to Vietnam, instead of taking the tough job of flying planes back home in the US, right? That seems to be the clear implication, that any honorable veteran wouldn’t support him. Please explain then the huge support he has received from the VFW, or explain why you consider them all dishonorable.
“Your sort of rhetoric and that of McCauliff will ensure he doesn’t get any guard votes either. We know what you are implying, and it is that there is something not quite right about “just” serving in the Guard.”
READ WHAT I WROTE. What I said is that it’s completely invalid to compare serving in the guard TODAY to serving in the guard during Vietnam - as many here are doing. Vietnam saw very little use of Guard forces - particularly the ANG. Every conflict since has seen far more use of the guard, and some of the conflicts before Vietnam saw considerably more. Colin Powell himself, prior to being appointed by Bush, said the exact same thing that I and others have been saying - that during the Vietnam war, many people joined the Guard - especially the Air National Guard - since it was a safe bet that you wouldn’t be sent into combat, and wouldn’t face the stigma of being a “draft dodger”.
Colin Powell wrote: “I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed… managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units … Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country.”
So - is Powell a “Bush hater”, as you classify everyone else who makes these comments? He made the exact same assessment as those you are labelling “Bush haters”, “anti-Americans”
Look at the USAF statistics - only FOUR ANG units were sent to Vietnam during the entire war. To claim that National Guard units were frequently sent into combat during Vietnam, based on the fact that NOW they are, is utterly wrong.
Yes, some National Guardsmen died during training. A friend of mine died while we were in college - does that mean that going to college rather than to Vietnam was just as dangerous and heroic? After all, you’re claiming that since your friend died while training in New Mexico, that that must mean that joining the Guard was just as dangerous, and just as honorable. So, I should be able to make the same claim based on my friend dying in college, right?
Serving in the Guard today - and in fact in any other time other than during Vietnam - is FAR different from serving in the guard during the Vietnam war was. That’s particularly true of the ANG. That’s not me making any accusations - that’s the simple facts. Fourty ANG units deployed to the middle east during the first Gulf War - FOUR deployed to Vietnam during the entire, much longer and bigger war.
“You don’t have to say it, all you have to do is keep dragging out statistics showing how ’safe’ it was.”
I’m dragging out statistics to point out the complete falseness of the claim that being in the Guard meant a person was very likely to be sent to Vietnam, as people here are claiming. In the Army National Guard that was somewhat more true - but not the Air National Guard. Again - only four units deployed during the entire war - all before 1970 - so how can anyone claim he was likely to be sent? The majority of those who were given appointments to Bush’s TANG unit the same year he was were also sons of politicians - are you claiming that was just coincidence? They, and their parents knew it was a safe bet that they wouldn’t be sent into combat. The figures support that clearly. Once again - four ANG units sent to Vietnam in 1968 and 1969 combined, and none after that. So - how can you claim that Bush was likely to be sent to Vietnam?
It’s entertaining how you can just delete any part of someone’s post that you can’t defend. Makes it an easy debate, doesn’t it? Of course, I have no doubt that this paragraph will quickly be gone. Fortunately, Bush will have to answer questions like that in his campaign.
And the most absurd thing of all - claiming that Kerry’s service was possibly safer than Bush’s service in the TANG? Explain why five of his crewmates died during their service? How many of Bush’s fellows in the TANG were killed by hostile fire? Some swift boat service was relatively safe - until the swift boat service was changed from coastal patrol to patrolling the Mekong Delta waterways. Then they became a VERY dangerous job. They essentially patrolled the river to draw out enemy fire, playing a sitting duck, and then engaging the enemy. Explain to me how that was safer than flying a plane in Texas. The man who ordered the swift boat policy estimated later, after the war, that the men serving on the swift boats had roughly a 75% chance of dying each year. It’s absolutely absurd and disrespectful that you would claim that Kerry and other swift boat soldiers had a safe job, or somehow served less honorably than a guy flying a plane back in Texas.
If you don’t want to deal with that, just delete that paragraph so you can avoid responding entirely.
For a little background on swift boat service, and Kerry’s in particular, read this:
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml
Or delete the link, since it doesn’t support your view that swift boat servicemen weren’t as valorous as guys flying planes back in Texas.
“Now nobody is going to say that combat is the same as flying a dangerous aircraft. It is not. But serving in that dangerous aircraft is certainly not dishonorable, as you seem to imply.”
No, that is not what I am implying. I am arguing against the claims that have been made here that Bush somehow served more honorably, or was in more danger than JOhn Kerry. Further, I am arguing against the claim that he was highly likely to go to Vietnam based on the level of National Guard deployment in recent wars.
Colin Powell has stated that he felt many people, particularly sons of politicians or other wealthy individuals, were given priority in National Guard duty as a way of avoiding combat, without appearing dishonorable. Is Powell a liberal Bush hater? Does Powell have no idea what he was talking about?
“And it sure as hell isn’t the same as being a convenience store clerk (like I say, you are just digging yourself in deeper when you say crap like that). ”
I did not say it is the same - yet again, try debating what I have ACTUALLY said, rather than contorting my words into something else that is easier to argue against. You made the claim that serving in the National Guard within the US during Vietnam was just as dangerous and valorous as being sent into combat. You based that on the fact that your friend died while doing that. That is not valid logic. An identical use of the same logic (since my friend died while doing this….) is my statement above that since my friend died while going to college, going to college was therefore just as dangerous and valorous as going to Nam. I am not claiming that they are the same - I am making that analogy to point out the flaw in the logic. Going to college, or working in a convenience store, is/was obviously NOT as dangerous, nor as valorous as going to Nam. The fact that people died while working as store clerks or going to college does not make it so. Just as your friend dying while training within the US does not make being a stateside Guardsman as dangerous as going to Nam, as you seem to be claiming. And before you go into attack mode again, I am not stating the Guardsmen or cowards, or anything of the sort - just pointing out the flaw in your logic at claiming that they were in as much danger.
“So when you start making those comparisons, you are indeed saying that those who didn’t serve in combat didn’t do enough. Otherwise, why bother to bring it up at all.”
I bring it up to point out the completely false claims here.
“There were 8,000,000 people who served in the armed forces during the Vietnam war. 2,500,000 went to ‘Nam. A much smaller number served in combat.”
And when you look at the ANG people, the percentage that served in combat is far far far smaller than the percentage of total armed forces who served in combat. That clearly indicates that those in the ANG were far less likely to be sent to combat.
“So since I am apparently unable to understand why you are posting this stuff, perhaps you could enlighten me. Of what interest is it that Bush served irregularly in 1972? Why are we talking about this?”
The ONLY reason I posted anything here was to point out the errors in the claims above:
1. That ANG people during Vietnam were just as likely to go to combat as any other military person (the numbers clearly show they weren’t). The guard, especially the ANG, was NOT used the same during Vietnam as it has been used since.
2. To point out the complete absurdity of the claim that Kerry was in no danger, or less danger than Bush. The man in charge of the swift boat campaign in the Mekong Delta estimated, after the war, that those serving on the boats had a 75% chance of being killed EACH year. What was the death rate for those flying in the TANG? 1% over the entire war?
“And then you try to change the subject. Sorry, but I’m going to delete that part of your comment as irrelevant to the this thread. All it does is show your bias against Bush, and your willingness to misinterpret facts to your benefit.”
How convenient that you can delete anything you can’t argue. No need to explain why he has cut veterans benefits and military pay - it’s irrelevent. You can claim repeatedly that all military people love Bush, but the reality is that many don’t (probably about 70% of all of the military people I know DON’T support him anymore - most did in 2000, most don’t anymore). I stated a reason why many military and former military no longer support him, to argue against the claims here that military people all love Bush and hate Kerry - when you can’t deal with those facts, you can simply delete them. How wonderful for you - you can avoid any facts that don’t support your view.
Massive support of VFW? Is that why they had to ask the delegates to withhold their personal opinions when he spoke to the VFW convention?
Kerry will of course get some ‘Nam vet votes. Veterans are hardly a monoculture. But in a politically significant sense, no, he won’t.
I read what you wrote. And I know how it will play to the guard folks. This is not a university debating club. And by the way, you might want to read what we have been writing too, unless your distortion of my arguments is intentional.
As to your comments about my friend dying in New Mexico… your comparison of your friend dying in college to my friend who died serving his country is outrageous (not to mention an instance of specious logic). It is one thing to play debating tricks. It is another to dishonor the dead as part of your rhetoric. And make no mistake; that is what your comment does, whether you have the sensitivity to understand that or not.
Now I understand that since you are not old enough to have experienced any of this for your self, and that you apparently haven’t served in the military, and as far as I can tell, have spent your entire life in academia, so that you may not understand how hurtful some of your remarks are, and how ignorant others are.
You don’t learn about the military by just googling up a few disconnected facts. As a scientist, you should know better than to use partial evidence. Your comments here would certainly not pass peer review.
And yes, as webmaster, I can delete things. But I didn’t delete anything I couldn’t argue. I deleted stuff that was (a) off topic, (b) covered elsewhere and hence redundant. You wanted to throw some points about vet benefits and military pay, which have absolutely nothing to do with whether Bush honorably served his country, but transparently serve your Bush-bashing agenda. It *has* been covered elsewhere on this blog (read what vets have to say about it) and it *is* irrelevant to this thread.
If I really wanted to avoid debate, I could have deleted every critical post on this thread (and on the more interesting thread here).
So far, yours has been the only one I have deleted anything from. I am sure you will go away from this feeling superior… obviously I must have deleted them because I couldn’t answer.
I am not going to bother to answer the rest. Those who have adequate reading comprehension can look at this thread, see how you are exaggerating my statements, and make up their minds for themselves. I will suggest that your take it as homework to determine how your points #1 and #2 are based on a misreading of this board.
While you are polishing your Porsches, just remember that a hell of a lot of folks sacrificed for their country and you, and Bush is one of us.
Since there is obviously no way to convince you, there is no point in continuing this nonsense. I have a living to make.
“Massive support of VFW? Is that why they had to ask the delegates to withhold their personal opinions when he spoke to the VFW convention? ”
That is almost always the policy when politicians speak at VFW conventions.
What about these VFW members who are supporting Kerry:
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040201-064456-7368r.htm
At the VFW in South Carolina.
http://www.vfwdc.org/NLS/Testimony/2003/2004/0122.htm
Is the DC VFW just confused, since they seem to think that some veterans do support Kerry. Did I imagine all of those Kerry supporters from the VFW here in New Hampshire.
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Sanders_020504,00.html
At least some veterans are aware of what’s going on:
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=1103
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=980
“Kerry will of course get some ‘Nam vet votes. Veterans are hardly a monoculture. But in a politically significant sense, no, he won’t.”
Then why are so many sources - media, VFWs, etc., talking about veterans being a big reason for his success? They are all confused too?
“As to your comments about my friend dying in New Mexico… your comparison of your friend dying in college to my friend who died serving his country is outrageous (not to mention an instance of specious logic). It is one thing to play debating tricks. It is another to dishonor the dead as part of your rhetoric. ”
Once again, I thought I explained this quite clearly - I am not equating my friend dying in college to your friend dying while training in the Guard. I am stating that your use of his death as an argument that being a stateside Guardsmen DURING THE VIETNAM WAR was not safer than being drafted, is based on faulty logic (i.e. essentially the argument “since my friend died, it was therefore just as dangerous”). I am pointing out that flaw in logic, by using the same argument (”since my friend died doing this, it was therefore just as dangerous”) with the hypothetical argument that going to college must have been just as dangerous as being drafted, since my friend died going to college. It’s clearly not the case - but it’s using the same logic as your argument that joining the Guard DURING THE VIETNAM WAR was not safer than getting drafted. If you truly think joining the guard was not safer, and the sons of wealthy/political parents (”fortunate sons”) did not get special consideration, please direct your comments to COlin Powell, who has made the same argument as I am.
Again, I am not calling Bush a coward, or ANY member of the Guard - just stating that being in the Guard DURING THE VIETNAM WAR, especially the ANG, was a lot safer than getting drafted and sent into combat. Hell, if I were in Bush’s shoes, I probably would have done the exact same thing. I am not criticizing him for joining the TANG. Just stating that I do not think it’s accurate to portray him as a war hero as some seem to want to do. And more importantly, I think it is ridiculous for him to portray himself as a “military president”, as he wants to do - someone who knows what it’s like to be in combat, and someone who supports the military. People here have made that claim about him, which is why I brought up the issue of him NOT supporting the military, by cutting combat pay, cutting veterans’ benefits, and cutting a scheduled cost of living pay increase - the information you deleted. I felt it was on-topic because of others portraying him as someone who supported the military. I mentioned those as examples of why I feel he does not.
“Now I understand that since you are not old enough to have experienced any of this for your self, and that you apparently haven’t served in the military, and as far as I can tell, have spent your entire life in academia, so that you may not understand how hurtful some of your remarks are, and how ignorant others are.”
I assume you did not mean to say “how ignorant others are”? Or did you mean to say that everyone other than me is ignorant?
And no, I have not spent my entire life in academia. I came back to academia about 8 years ago to pursue my phd, and after 9/11 focused my endeavours on alternative energy research, to get our country off of petroleum dependence. And no, I was not old enough to worry about being drafted during the war.
“You don’t learn about the military by just googling up a few disconnected facts. As a scientist, you should know better than to use partial evidence. Your comments here would certainly not pass peer review.”
I know far more about the military than just googling some facts. Again, almost my entire family other than myself is, or was in the military. I was brought up on military bases. For the first 20 years of my life my main goal in life was to be a fighter pilot - I dropped out of the AFROTC I was in as an undergrad when learning I wouldn’t be able to be a pilot due to not having 20/20 vision (nowadays, at least in the Navy and for some AF planes, you are allowed to fly if you have laser eye surgery to get 20/20 vision - but that wasn’t an option back then).
“And yes, as webmaster, I can delete things. But I didn’t delete anything I couldn’t argue. I deleted stuff that was (a) off topic, (b) covered elsewhere and hence redundant. ”
When others make the claim that Bush has the experience and is primarily concerned with protecting the US (and that is considered on-topic), why is it off-topic for me to bring up the fact that he has given almost $1 billion in aid to the country that is forbidding us to cross its borders to search for bin Laden, and that gave nuclear technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea? If the other people’s comments were on topic, why are not my comments that were directly aimed at theirs off topic?
“You wanted to throw some points about vet benefits and military pay, which have absolutely nothing to do with whether Bush honorably served his country, but transparently serve your Bush-bashing agenda. ”
My agenda is not Bush bashing. I supported him until about mid-2002, essentially when he shifted his focus from Al Quaeda to Iraq (although I did vote for McCain in 2000 in the primary, not Bush). My agenda is about truth. Bush is being passed off as someone veterans should support. I don’t see why. I don’t think that his service in the ANG, or possible AWOL is a big issue. The reason I don’t think veterans should support him is how he treats veterans and active military. Perhaps if he HAD served in combat he would treat them better - regardless, I think the main issue is not his possibly going AWOL, but what he does to the military NOW.
Another point, you made the claim earlier:
“Then there’s the implication that Bush was already planning a role in politics and picked his service that way. Bush’s conduct after he got out of the guard was that of a frat boy, not a future politician. He didn’t become a serious person until he faced up to his alcoholism and was transformed (a religious experience in his case) into who he is today.”
That’s completely erroneous. The reason he left the TANG in 1972 was to work on a political campaign. Why would a person uninterested in politics do that? Immediately after leaving the TANG he was already getting involved in politics.
I should also point out that contrary to what has been claimed here, John Kerry has NOT bashed Bush for being in the Guard. Some other Democrats have, and have claimed he was AWOL. Kerry has not. I have not bashed Bush for it. As I said, I probably would have done the same thing in his shoes. I just don’t think it should be claimed that a person joining the ANG during Vietnam was putting themselves in as much danger as someone who was sent into combat, or claiming that “fortunate sons” WEREN’T being given appointments to the ANG to keep them safe while preserving their future political careers. The ONLY reason the AWOL thing was resurrected was because of Michael Moore (the filmmaker) saying Bush was AWOL during a Howard Dean event - John Kerry, CLark, etc., had NOTHING to do with it.
“So far, yours has been the only one I have deleted anything from. I am sure you will go away from this feeling superior… obviously I must have deleted them because I couldn’t answer.”
When they seemed perfectly on topic to me, since they were in direct response to other posts made earlier, it just didn’t make any sense to me for them to be deleted.
“While you are polishing your Porsches, just remember that a hell of a lot of folks sacrificed for their country and you, and Bush is one of us.”
What did Bush sacrifice? I have tremendous respect for everyone who has ever been in the military. I have never called Bush a coward for joining the ANG - but I do believe that he most likely did it (as many other “fortunate sons” did) since it was a pretty safe bet he’d stay out of combat, without the bad rep of dodging the draft. Colin Powell also believes many “fortunate sons” did that - or at least he said so before Bush appointed him.
And for the record, since you brought it up (I see someone else can use google, eh?), not too long after 9/11, I sold the Porsches to buy diesel vehicles for myself and my wife to run on biodiesel produced by US farmers. I shifted my entire research focus to alternative fuels that can be produced here to get us off of foreign oil. But I probably did that because I hate America, right? That seems to be the label given to anyone who doesn’t support Bush anymore.
“Since there is obviously no way to convince you, there is no point in continuing this nonsense. I have a living to make.”
Ditto.
Just for the record, the reason so many ANG units were deployed this last war was because of the use of so-called “decomissioned” aircraft. The A-10 Thunderbolt was deployed to the same base I was stationed at; all piloted by ANG men.
And for the record, I saw an A-10 land with one engine during the beginning stages of the war. Came to find out the jet engine was operating at 20%. So it was operating on 10% total power, and the pilot still put down a beautiful landing. What a plane!
By the way, great website. Bush in ‘04!
Mike Briggs,
Since you claim to not having called anyone a coward, I quote from your post:
Mike Briggs, Regarding Your Post of Feb. 10:
In that post you raise two good issues: One pertains to the quality of service by George Bush in the National Guard during the Vietnam era. The second addresses the prudence of attacking Iraq after 9/11 when other countries in that region seemed to pose a greater threat to us.
I would like to address the first issue, here, and I will follow with a subsequent post, tomorrow, addressing the second.
First, let my identify myself and my credentials, such as they are. I have a fairly good formal education and I served in Vietnam for 13 ½ months, and saw the war there up close. When I returned I was assigned as Company Commander, India Company, 3rd Recruit Training Battalion , Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD), San Diego. In that capacity I led seven officers and 70 drill instructors in turning 1300 youths into U.S. Marines every eight weeks.
Like you, I had some concerns about the quality of a young George W. Bush’s service in the National Guard. But unlike you I never had any concerns about the National Guard as being a safe haven during the Vietnam War.
My concerns about the quality of Bush’s service in the Guard have been totally erased by the recent information that has come out. And, if you have any concerns there I suggest you look at that information. As for the National Guard being a safe haven during the Vietnam era I will address that below.
1) Was young George W. Bush’s service in the National Guard a safe haven during the Vietnam era?
From a military perspective that is an irrelevant question because the military’s concern is focused on mission. Some missions are more dangerous than others, but all missions are important in the eyes of the military. To get promoted you must have a good record of mission accomplishment. Medals might be considered but are not paramount, and certainly take a back seat to mission.
Perhaps you can help me make my point by considering the following questions. Which missions are the most important: That of a company of Marines going on a sweep in Vietnam or that of the cooks that feed the Marines before they go thereby boosting their morale; that of the submariners hiding with pride in the depth of an ocean ready to respond on a moments notice to fire their nuclear missiles and take out a country or those of officers and airman serving at a silo of an intercontinental missile waiting for the order to fire; that of the soldiers along the DMZ in South Korea or that of Soldiers along the Berlin wall; that of a helicopter pilot that goes in after medivacs or that of the mechanics that ensure the safe operation of his aircraft; that of pilots flying off an aircraft carrier or that of the seaman and petty officers manning the flight deck; that of a Marine trained to kill efficiently who considers the enemy a target and not a person or that of a national guardsman who is trained to use restraint in dealing with people in volatile civil situations?
Well, Mr. Briggs the answer is that they are all important, and all interdependent. A U.S. Marine who suddenly awoke to find himself in a riot control situation would be as much out of place as a Guardsman who awoke to suddenly find himself in a rice patty advancing on an enemy with his fire team while other fire teams were providing suppressing fire.
Some missions may turn out to be more dangerous than others but the men and women performing them are totally dependent upon those providing support, and eternally grateful to the men and women that provide it.
A U.S. Marine Infantry Company Commander, at least in my day, lived by the phrase “Two up, one back, one in reserve and hot chow on the high ground” That was said to be the formula for tactical success. It means two platoons facing the enemy; one back to rush to any breakthroughs by the enemy; and a platoon in reserve to replace one of the other platoons should any one of them get decimated. After the battle, “hot chow” on the high ground refers to refueling the Marines, thereby sustaining not only their bodies, but their morale after they reached their objective, the high ground. The mission of the two up platoons is important. That of the one back platoon is important, as is the one in reserve. The mission of the cooks that provide the hot chow is especially important.
Senator John McCain came back from Vietnam a hero for his defiance and persistence in the Hanoi Hilton, and for the example he set for his fellow POW’s. However, Sen. McCain, often as a form of self denigrating humor, says that any fool can get himself shot down. Who do you think his Squadron Commander was more pleased with, McCain who lost a multimillion dollar airplane and a pilot (himself) who cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to train, or the other pilots that returned to the carrier with their planes after accomplishing their mission and ready to go out on another mission.
Was Bush luckier than me because he got to serve in the National Guard and I ended up in Vietnam as a U.S. Marine. Not if he had crashed and been killed and I returned home safely, as I did.
When I was in Vietnam, in harms way so to speak along with approximately 500,000 other Americans, some Aussies, Canadians, South Korean Marines, and about 20 million Vietnamese including women and children, the brother of a very good friend of mine was killed in an auto accident back in the states; or as we called it back in the “world”. Who was luckier, he or I?
The military is about mission. Danger is about being mortal.
I accomplished my missions as a U.S. Marine. Bush accomplished his in the National Guard. We both did our duty. We both were mortal.
Mr. Briggs, I hope, in your mind, this is a satisfactory response to the first issue you raised. I will address the second issue in a post tomorrow.
Thank you for raising two good issues.
Semper Fi
Earle Richmond, BA,MBA, JD
Former U.S. Marine and Vietnam Veteran
Posted by: Joe on January 29, 2004 04:49 PM:
“Hussein was no friend of Bin Laden’s, and was not supporting Bin Laden’s activities. Iraq was not “sabre rattling” with threats to attack United States soil.”
Uh, you are very wrong here.
Saddam had many Al Quaida and other islamoterrist organization representatives functioning within his country. We even made a point about having him end this support as one of the ways to avoid our invasion. I quote from Sec. of State Colin Powell’s UN speech immediately PRIOR to the invasion:
” But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida lieutenants.
Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialities and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons. When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqaqi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq. ”
Turns out to be right on target.
There is a letter from this guy on the front pages of every newspaper, you might have read about it…
Need I point out that one of the main points of the cessation of hostilites agreement between Saddam’s Ba’athofascist regime and the US at the end of Gulf War I was the cessation of all support, physical and financial of terrorist organiztions. If Iraq signed the agreement, and fails to perform on the agreement, what, exactly, is supposed to be the consequence of that failure to comply?
Kerry received three Purple Hearts for injuries requiring no hospitalization and leaving no scar.
He received a Silver Star for shooting a wounded man felled by twin .50 caliber fire by others.
Upon his return to the world, Kerry slandered his so-called “band of brothers”, perjuring himself before Congress, lying that American fighting men committed wholesale atrocities on a daily basis.
Concurrently, Kerry promoted the Communist Peoples’ Peace Treaty as an active leader of Vietnam Veterans Against The War.
Not surprisingly, General Vo Nguyen Giap credited the work of Kerry and VVAW with the Communist victory.
Contrast this aid and comfort to America’s enemy in time of war with Bush’s service and honorable discharge. Even Peter Jennings cautioned Terry McAuliffe that partisan charges of “deserter” were non-starters in light of the extant refutation by such right-wing publications as the NYT.
Fast forward to 1993 when Kerry suppressed investigation of missing US POWs in order to expedite normalization to enable Kerry’s cousin Forbes (John FORBES Kerry) to acquire hundreds of millions of dollars in profit through exclusive real estate contracts in Vietnam.
The US has given Iran (one of the Axis of Evil) until next month to clean house regarding its nuclear program. The people of Iran are boycotting their elections to protest 25 years of tyranny.
Yet, while our commander in chief and fighting forces have fought two successful wars of liberation since our attack by Osama bin laden,
While the draft-dodger who blew a dozen opportunities to kill or capture bin Laden was defended by Kerry,
Kerry has in the past few days emailed his apologies to the official propaganda agency of Iran for the actions of America in the last three years.
Kerry, who has voted to cut every major defense program and to cut a billion dollars from our intelligence agencies, has the craven calculation to undercut our cinc and fighting men in time of war.
Robert Baer, SEE NO EVIL, a twenty-three-year CIA case officer said Iran was responsible for the 1983 Beirut Embassy bombing.
Iran, which held our people hostage, has cursed us as Satan, has killed tens of thousands of its own people, is the recipient of an APOLOGY by John Forbes Kerry for America having liberated fifty million oppressed peoples in the past three years and defending CONUS against further al Qaeda attacks.
Now the story surfaces of a serial philanderer whose latest amour is in hiding in Kenya.
While the jilted general who nearly incited WWIII in his losing race to Pristina, butchering tractor convoys of refugees and trading hats with the ethnic-cleansing enemy general cites an obese lying propagandist in calling the cinc’s NG service into question.
No wonder Clark endorses Kerry, and no wonder Kerry endorsed Daniel Ortega, the Communist darling of the Democrat Congress who was serially molesting his daughter from the age of eleven.
In the light of day, men reveal themselves.
Mr. Briggs:
In your post of February 10, the second issue you raised pertained to the the prudence of attacking Iraq after 9/11 when other countries in that region seemed to pose a greater threat to us.
This is exactly how you posed the issue: “If Bush is really just trying to protect us, why are we sending Americans off to fight in a country that had NO WMDs, and NO ties with Al Quaeda, while giving aid to the country that HAS sold nuclear technology, and is preventing us from searching for Bin Laden?
Mr. Briggs, you ask, why attack Iraq. I can’t tell you what Bush and his security council are thinking in that regard. And, there are things they can’t tell us without telegraphing our secret options to the entire world. But here is why I agree with attacking Iraq first, after 9/11:
As far as I am concerned Bush didn’t need WMD’s as an excuse. 9/11 was enough justification. We were attacked by a group of fundamentalists sponsored by the Wahabbie branch of Islam. They are predomiant in Saudi Arabia but are not limited by borders. In short we were attacked by some people with ideas that oppose our way of life from a region not a country. America has always taken the war to the enemy. Iraq is right in the heart of that region. So attacking Iraq makes a lot of sense to me.
By attacking Iraq we accomplished four things. (1) We freed millions of people from the horrific brutaliy of an evil man. (2) We sent a message to the surrounding region of what we are capable of doing militarily. (3) We have the opportunity to create a democracy in the heart of the middle east to bolster the support of our friends in those surrounding regions that favor democracy and to weaken our enemies there who fear democracy as a threat to their autocratic power. (4) We are in a better position to watch and influence the surrounding region and react as necessary.
This is not about nations and governments anymore. This is about regions and people with ideas that threaten us.
I hope you feel this answer and the one in my previous post adequately addresses the issues you raised in your Feb. 10 post.
I do not qualify for your website as I am just an old lady, but I hope you ‘edit in’ what I have to say. People are losing focus on a simple fact that pairs Kerry and Bush - skull and bones. Please read up on this group and the Bush & Kerry membership. It appears s&b bloodlines go from the pre-revolutionary era right up to today; these Britons never accepted America’s Independence. Nevertheless, skull and bones, historically based on piracy, is said to be dedicated to war profiteering, and especially from the drug trade. Not surprising, “bonesmen” like the usefullness of members with military service and medals, even if they are self-awarded. The fact is, you can’t separate either Kerry or Bush from huge banking and corporation interests which are, I’m told, acquiring the natural resources of Iraq now and will gain further by the continued presence of our troops who are sitting ducks. Our military are told to believe their mission is to be heros;they are heros! BUT this may now be a ruse. Because although our troops are willing to defend freedom, they may actually be defending post war carpetbaggers. Further, with Saddam gone, there’s no one else to hate but us. Meanwhile please check out the three ‘charitable’ Heinz trusts which especially like to support non-profit press. You will notice they don’t support air time for candidates like Kucinich and family members who want to bring the troops home;Heinz has big military contracts and are heavily invested in wireless telecommunications; they have oil connections. Of course they want vets to insist we stay in Iraq. Wonder if “bones” money is behind both Bush and Kerry; talk about hedging your bet! P.S Just read that CitiGroup, now broke, was just bought by Saudi Arabia whose folks bombed us 9/11. Thanks, John. Just me.
Blatant Lies from the “Bush was AWOL!” crowd
I couldn’t believe it when I read it. OK, so I could believe I was just hoping that no one actually employed someone this ignorant. Who am I talking about? Jimmy Breslin writing for Newsday. What matters is that Bush…
This whole thing is a hoot!
Back in the 60s and 70s, liberals and the left were all over the war effort, discrediting every fragment of it. I was an officer in the Air Force — piloted a desk until I applied for a navigator slot. When I would fly into LAX military Space-A (where I had to where my uniform) I got shouted down as a “baby killer” by the more virulent of the strain. But, now that it is fashionable to have served in that era because of the past two Gulf wars and the current fad to “support the troops, not GWB”. So we are treated to the desperate Democratic tactic of dusting off Mr. I-never-met-a-position-I-didn’t-like F-bomb Kerry and that psycho case from Arkansas who managed to honk up the war in Bosnia and pass himself off as a candidate for president just because he’s a general.
Yep! Suddenly, it’s fashionable for those guys to stand up these two straw dummies and then conjure up some story about Bush going AWOL.
By the way, here’s another fact that people are conveniently overlooking: from early 1972 through the end of the Viet Nam war, the military was undergoing a process of “Vietnamization” and lots of pilots flying fighters, bombers, etc. were being given early outs (excused from their ADSC) because there was literally NO WORK AVAILABLE. The remainder who stayed in faced RIFs and the ultimate desultory treatment by that goober from Georgia who almost ran our military into the ground.
Whew! I’ve got reader’s cramp from all that. John, I linked in from Jennifers Collection of Thoughts site and enjoyed your input. Kinda sad you have to deal with so many weirdos and get dragged into their game. Those who didn’t go (anywhere) sit around and read all the crap online and form opinions based on raw left rhetoric and opinion. Right now the US Army comes to us, the Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Assn., to find out what the hell happened in ‘Nam. We have compiled millions of orders, records, individual recounts, etc. and they know squat. Anyone who had to depend on what’s on the official Army site would be sadly mis- or at least un-informed as to most of the facts of what went down. I have no doubt that’s also true of the AirForce site, which our young acadamecian (?) seems to think infallible. Keep up the good work, and don’t hesitate to post to the other like-minded blogs. These pseudo intellectuals will continue to muddy the water with their learned arguments, although those of us who served honorably will continue to be amazed that “the donks aren’t putting their best man forward.” Kerry and Fonda can seek forgiveness from their maker; ain’t my job! You have some thoughtful respondents who’s work needs to be highlighted. Loved the post about everybody is important, one of my recurrent themes with my Army Aviator flight students. Without refuelers and bus drivers and snack bar ladies and controllers and mechanics and schedulers and taxpayers, we couldn’t fly into the jaws of death with our aluminum and plexiglass contraptions and help the grunts. I’m kinda amazed you allow these dip-shits to post anyway. You could take out about 50% of what’s here (OK, I didn’t measure it) and have a really dynamite site. Course then the rest wouldn’t have a lib whipping boy. Wish him luck on his french-fry-mobile and send him on his way. He should stick to alternate energy and forgo the political field, which he has no honor or talent for. Maybe some day he’ll make a contribution to society. Supporting Kerry isn’t. BTW, the skull&bones made me do it! Ha ha. Keep up the good work here!
jpickens:
When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqaqi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq.
Northeast Iraq is controlled by the Kurds. The Kurds were at war with Saddam & co. The specific camp you are referring to happened to be a base of Ansar al-Islam, a militant group of Kurdish Islamists. There is no proof that the secular Ba’ath regime supported these terrorists and they are two strong reasons to believe they didn’t:
- Saddam hates Kurds
- Saddam hates Islam fundamentalists
Need I point out that one of the main points of the cessation of hostilites agreement between Saddam’s Ba’athofascist regime and the US at the end of Gulf War I was the cessation of all support, physical and financial of terrorist organiztions.
Saddam was actually doing more than was required, since he tried to take back the territory occupied by the Kurds (and kick out Ansar al-Islam in the process). He even used WMD.
BYE BYE Kerry
kerry was a punk back then and still is i could say a lot more but would go to jail nam 65 66
I have read some of the comments here tonight. I can tell you that some of you will think George Bush can do nothing right. No matter what he does, you will find a reason not to give him or anyone in the staff credit. There is plenty of blame to go around. I was in the Navy for 13 years. I joined in 1978. I remember the failed hostage rescue in the desert(Jimmy Carter). Reagon had his also with the bombing that killed all the marines. There was Somalia. There was Kosovo. You see, the one thing in common with all these events is not all people agreed with what was happening. There has been a underlying movement to cut the legs out from the military to excute there jobs correctly. Look at history. All you have to have is a little common sense. I know you will say that Somalia was a mistake, the thing is that the military is not a police force. The military is meant to do one thing! In Kosovo, do you have any idea how many innocent people died? So to sit there and say the Bush has no right to act in Iraq, where were you when clinton acted? Where was he when the genocide was going on in Africa? Did he(clinton) not act because they were black? Now we get to kerry, he was in Vietnam. Have you ever wondered what it takes to get a silver star? Purple cross? I am not saying this to downgrade veterans who have given there all, however it seems to me that kerry is using his service to get a head. When he came back from Vietnam, he testified that veterans were commiting war crimes. If this is so, why didn’t kerry charge anyone under the UCMJ? Why was kerry not charged under the UCMJ? Does this mean he commited war crimes also since everyone in Vietnam was doing it? As for Bush, he was in the guard. Does this mean that his service count less the kerry’s or mine or yours? Time is time. We have people like ted kennedy talking about how this is Bushs Vietnam. Does ted not remember that John Kennedy was instrumental in starting the whole Vietnam experience? It started with advisors. Remember? Why is ted talking about anything, does he not remember the homicide he was involved in? I recall Nixon bringing the men home. This is all about common sense. We are in a war like no other. If you think that we can sit back and let the UN or EU take care of this you are sadly mistaken. We have taken the fight to the them. No matter what you think, we are in a long war. Do you honestly think that if we left Iraq and Afghanistan right now that it would all stop? The people that are fighting are against the way you and I live. The freedom. The way of life we have goes against what they believe. I am not ready to give up my freedom for you and anyone of them. I have a son who came back from Iraq. I am an American of Mexican descent. I mention this so you don’t think I am speaking out my butt. It is time that we all pool together and support the troops. Don’t tell me you can talk about the President and his policies. Don’t you think they are watching and listening to what people are saying like kerry. The more we talk in the negative, the more courage those people will get. They want to break the will of the American People and alot of Americans are falling into that trap. We need to support our men and women in the military. I am not saying to be a robot. But rest assured that they are watching and the more negative things are in the news the more violence is going to come.
Title: Bush and Uncommon Valor Commentary
by: Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.)
George Bush and I were fighter pilots. Lt. Bush flew F-102s in the Air National Guard (ANG) — 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS); I flew F-105s in combat — 34th Tactical Fighter Squadron (TFS). Both our flying assignments were inherently dangerous — Lt. Bush’s because of the high performance nature of the fighter interceptor aircraft he was flying, the training required to fly the F-102, and the high risks that come with all weather (night and day) intercept missions.
Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic National Committee’s Mr. Terry McAuliffe and the anti-war (weak on National Security) left wing of the Democrat Party have relentlessly attacked the service of Lt. Bush and by inference other pilots and service members in the ANG and Reserve forces as cowards and shirkers of responsibility for not being in Vietnam. Their flippant slandering of our Guard and Reserve forces in an effort to discredit President Bush and win an election is beyond the pale. They have no decency left.
Lt. Bush’s opportunity to fly jets and serve his country came through the Air National Guard when he was 22 years old. Just like Lt. Bush, my goal as a young man was to fly high performance jet fighter aircraft — both of us realized our dream. I might have been just a dumb fighter pilot but I don’t remember looking ahead (and I’m sure Lt. Bush didn’t either) to what missions we could be assigned — peacetime or wartime. All we wanted to do as young men was to fly these magnificent flying machines (jets) and enjoy the opportunity to serve our country. (Contributing to the Air National Guard’s Air Defense mission, Lt. Bush flew hundreds of hours in the F-102 — the world’s first supersonic all-weather jet interceptor aircraft; he served his country protecting the United States.)
Neither Lt. Bush nor I had control over mission assignment, where we would be deployed or how the service would task the units we were assigned. Lt. Bush would have gladly gone to Vietnam or anywhere else his unit was deployed — but the reality was that young Lt. Bush had no say as to how his unit would be utilized to support our country’s National Security interests. I guess you could say such decisions were above our pay grade. Lt. Bush’s mission, as a squadron fighter interceptor pilot, was to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft inbound to the United States; for example, Soviet Nuclear Bombers. Remember, we were still in the Cold War in the 1970s with Air Defense a high priority mission. Today our Air Defense forces protect us against aircraft with terrorists onboard.
I can say from my experience that flying operational fighter jets is highly dangerous. People don’t strap fighter jets to their backside if they are overly concerned for their future. While in F-105 training at McConnell AFB in early 1968, we lost five aircraft in six weeks (one aircraft crashed in air-to-air combat training; one aircraft crashed on the air-to-ground gunnery range; one crashed on take off; one crashed on final approach at a nearby airfield; and one crashed coming back from a cross-country mission). My nephew was killed while flying a Marine Corp EA-6B Prowler during a low level state-side training mission. I was in a flight where an F-105 pilot was killed while we were training on an air-ground gunnery range. Also, I’ve been in F -105 and F-111 operational units where a number of pilots were killed while training for their war time mission. We got really good at flying “Missing Man Formations” and doing memorial services for our fallen comrades and their families. I can assure you that Lt. Bush was continuously exposed to similar dangers during all weather scrambles and during training exercises as evidenced by the F-102 pilots killed in his unit.
Cowards (or people who lack courage) don’t take on the risks that Lt. Bush did in flying Fighter Interceptor Aircraft. Flying jets in wing formation in the weather and carrying explosive ordnance on board is dangerous work. The pilots in these squadrons (including Lt. Bush) did what their country asked them to do. They performed their assigned mission and did it well. In November 1970, the Commander of the Texas Air National Guard, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, called Mr. Bush, then 24, “a dynamic outstanding young officer” who stood out as “a top-notch fighter interceptor pilot.”"Lt. Bush’s skills far exceed his contemporaries,” Colonel Killian wrote: “He is a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership. Lt. Bush is also a good follower with outstanding disciplinary traits and an impeccable military bearing.”
As a Fighter Squadron Commander in the Air Force (F ñ 111E aircraft, 55 TFS, Royal Air Force, Upper Heyford, United Kingdom) and having been in fighter squadrons during my career in the Air Force, all I can say is that the young people who make up these squadrons (like Lt. Bush) are the cream of the crop, top performers, talented, courageous and willing to take on any mission challenge presented to them, anytime, anyplace and anywhere. Everyone in a unit realizes that they serve to protect the National Security Interests of the United States and that they can be mobilized — with short notice — to deploy anywhere in the world.
During the Vietnam conflict, military pilot training was greatly expanded to accommodate the increased need for pilots. Thousands of pilots were trained during this conflict, primarily to support mission and pilot rotation requirements. F-105, F 4 fighter pilots, and the pilots of other combat aircraft were routinely rotated out of the combat theatre after completing their 100 combat missions. That meant that other pilots needed to be trained to take their place. As the Vietnam conflict began to phase down around 1971, there was a surplus of hundreds of pilots in the U.S. Military, for which there were relatively few flying jobs. Thus, the active duty force as well as ANG and Reserve forces could be very accommodating to those who wanted to pursue alternative career paths (such as Lt. Bush going to Harvard Business School). In fact, these sorts of administrative actions (early releases) helped alleviate the challenges facing the services of a pilot surplus. Also, commanders were lenient in allowing individuals to fulfill their service obligations in ways not involving flying duty. Such arrangements were coordinated at the unit level.
Just as Lt. Bush’s supervisor released him from the ANG to go to Harvard, I released a pilot from the Air Force months early (when I was Commander of the 4442nd Tactical Control Group) so he could participate in the pilot hiring cycle of Delta Airlines. I could have held this pilot to the end of his service commitment but chose not to — since letting him go early created no hardship to our unit. Rather, it gave a pilot (who had served his country well) an immediate opportunity for a future career. I point this fact out so that the public knows that Commanders have the prerogative to make decisions that take into consideration the needs of the Unit and the needs of an individual ready to make a career transition out of the service. Having been a Squadron Commander, I can tell you this — we know the status of our assigned personnel all the time — everyone is accounted for. We reported the status of all our squadron personnel daily to a higher level in our organization. Likewise, Lt. Bush’s Squadron Commander of 30 plus years ago (Lt. Col. Killian, now deceased), would have known where Lt. Bush was or, at the very least, how to contact him should that have been necessary. The bottom line: Lt. Bush’s documented Air National Guard service exceeded the requirements set forth in his Guard contract and Lt. Bush received an Honorable Discharge.
As Lt. Bush completed his flying assignment in April 1972, F-102s were being phased out of the Air National Guard. What we know is that he served honorably; he flew fighter jets; he embraced the inherent high risk of flying an F -102; he served our country; he met his Air National Guard requirements and he received an Honorable Discharge. The attacks on Lt. Bush are designed to diminish Lt. Bush’s service to our country in the eyes of our citizens and soldiers some thirty years after Lt. Bush received an Honorable Discharge. This is truly reprehensible and driven by political adversaries like Sen. Kerry, Mr. Terry McAuliffe and their left-wing media surrogates. (Go to cspan.org for the White House Press Briefing with Scott McClellan on 02/10/04 — the impetus for me to write this letter.)
There is a much bigger story to be told than anything related to Lt. Bush’s honorable service to our country. It is the story of a fringe element of the Democrat Party (as represented by Sen. Kerry from Massachusetts and Mr. Terry McAuliffe of the DNC) that will stoop to any depth to obtain political power to include: attacking the motives of our service members (ANG and Reserve); it is a fringe element that is willing to undermine the confidence of our fighting forces in their commander-in-chief in the midst of our global war on terrorism; it is a fringe element that places political power higher on their priority list than U.S. National Security; otherwise, they wouldn’t be denigrating and diminishing ANG and Reserve Service in an effort to undermine the credibility of the commander-in-chief of our Armed Forces.
Political leadership should be looking ahead not behind. But since we are looking 30 years behind I will make several comments: (1) I served with true heroes, although none of the guys I served with ever considered themselves heroes — they just put their butts on the line every day whether flying in operational, combat or training units; (2) Lt. Bush put his butt on the line every time he scrambled on an Air Defense mission. He is a true hero that our soldiers and citizens should be rightfully proud of; and (3) the service of our Guard and Reserve soldiers should never be denigrated or diminished for political purposes or to win an election — as is being done by Sen. Kerry and Mr. Terry McAuliffe.
Like many veterans of Vietnam, I returned to a country that was, for the most part, unappreciative of the service rendered by our fighting forces. It is sad that this attack on our commander-in-chief results in reopening the feelings and wounds of bygone years, and brings back thoughts of many comrades in arms that never returned to United States — having given their lives for their country.
Although it is fair to recognize Sen. Kerry’s four month war record and medals, it is what he did after leaving the military that deserves the greatest scrutiny. He became a turn coat by misrepresenting to the American public what our soldiers were doing in Southeast Asia. As part of the anti-war movement with Jane Fonda, he maligned, mocked and discredited our soldiers while they were still engaged in battle. He lied about what our soldiers were doing in combat. He defamed our brave fighting men. The ultimate insult our citizens could inflict on the Armed Forces of the United States would be to vote into office (as commander-in-chief) the person who betrayed his comrades in arms while they were still fighting and dying on the battlefield and in air combat.
Further, military people understand that Sen. Kerry has voted against the major weapon systems needed by the military to carry out their mission. Additionally, he has voted against CIA funding of human intelligence needed to preclude attacks on our country (such as 9/11) and protect our citizens and soldiers overseas. Senator Kerry voted for the war in Iraq and then voted against funding the war after our troops were placed in harm’s way.
As we all know, since Sept. 11, 2001 our country has been at war with international terrorism. Instead of supporting our national leadership (in taking the battle to our terrorist enemies), a cabal of power-hungry politicians, supported by the liberal media elites and their vitriolic followers, have done everything they can to undermine our war on terror, our troops and the commander-in-chief of our armed forces.
Today we look with pride at our service people who risk their lives everyday for us. I’m grateful that we now have a population that, for the most part, appreciates our armed forces and their efforts to defend us. We need to fully support our soldiers and their president. Our country’s success in fighting the war on terror depends on our (1) supporting those that are on the front line protecting us and (2) standing by the president who is taking the battle to the enemy.
We have not been attacked in the United States after 9/11 because we have a president and an administration that have been proactive in going after the national security threats to United States. Just think about how our national security would likely have been handled by the anti-war left of the Democrat party and Sen. Kerry. We would probably still be debating what to do in the United Nations; Afghanistan would likely still be under control of the Taliban; Iraq would still be under the control of Saddam Hussein, and cities in the United States would have come under attack on multiple occasions as terrorist organizations were further emboldened by our meek responses. And it wouldn’t be surprising if we were negotiating with al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to preclude further attacks on our cities.
The question everyone needs to ask themselves before voting in November is: Who do you trust to handle our national security? I trust President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Who do you trust?
THIS HAS BEEN A GREAT READ FOR THIS OLD VET. NO
DOUBT ABOUT IT, MR BUSH IS THE RIGHT MAN FOR THIS
TIME OF OUR LIVES.
I have the utmost respect for any of you who served our country in the Military.
That being said. Little Prince George was bumped up the line and given a gravy assignment because daddy was a congressman. In your hearts you know this. It’s as plain as day.
Rich,
He was qualified, and contrary to your assertion, there was a shortage of qualified fighter pilot recruits, because it required a much longer commitment.
Just as my friend got into the New Mexico Air Guard without needing influence, Bush didn’t need influence anyway.
Furthermore, your argument is self defeating. If Bush had all that power, why didn’t he just join the 6 month guard and minimize his involvement?
You guys can keep on attacking him, but I will still consider you idiots.
And the most important thing to keep in mind was that while both candidates risked their lives in the military, one went on to commit treason while still an officer. And just this year he tried to hide the fact that he was still in the Navy at that time, and I have detailed on this blog, but when he was forced to release some of his records, he had to take down his phoney biography and replace it with one that doesn’t have any military dates after 1970.
Check it out. Your guy is a liar, a traitor and has been trying to cover up his military status just this year.
Bush did his job and served his nation.
Furthermore, the chickenhawk argument is one that is intellectually dishonest, because it implies that qualifications for the presidency should resolve on comparing medals. By that criteria, Col. David Hackworth should be president. In the United States, we believe in civilian rule. By your standards, Grant was a great president, GHW Bush was a great president, Clinton wasn’t qualified (he lied to get out of the draft) and FDR wasn’t qualified.
When you make your claims with those of us who know the military, you just look like a brainwashed fool.